Are there any theories or schools of thought that assume most humans still act as if they are still hunters/gatherers?

Hunter/gatherer societies of today would still prefer to sit around and talk with their friends than to learn about sci., eng., or even social sci.

I went to a place in a remote part of the Sepik where I was the first traveller to reach as well as a similar area in the highlands. The children had never seen a white person.

People in both areas have ample leisure time and it seems to be center around sitting in a circle and socializing. They spend more time with friends in a day than most westerners spend in a week.

A guy asked me how could he get the things that I have. I told him, "Do this, do that, don't do that, blah, blah....even then I don't think you'll be able to achieve it but possibly your children. However, it will mean that you can't sit around the fire all day and do nothing." He replied, "Then I don't want it. I like time with my friends around the fire. I'll keep what we have."

From: The tribesman who Facebooked me. (comments section)

This does not sound too different than modern citizens. There is little interest outside of sports, idle chit chat, gossip, and celebrity news. Most people also want to be trained, rather than be educated. Conversations and social interaction are the only desired means of learning for most people. Learning a set of rules vs creativity/exploration.

It would explain why Alan Kay believes all scientists/engineers constitute less than 1% of the population. The rest either want training or manual labour (ie the same mentality in surviving in the wilderness.)

  • $\begingroup$ All evolutionary psychology theories try to explain present behavior with past lifestyles. $\endgroup$ – user3116 Nov 12 '13 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ You could also look at your tale from a different perspective. You look at science versus "idle chit-chat". I look at lonely nerd brooding over his desk at night versus sociable friends loving their time together. People love to interact with other people. But then you could say that social life comes from our ancestors who were unable to survive on their own. Or you could say: being lonely is simply no fun. Even today. So people (wisely) chose pastimes and professions that allow them to interact with other people. People love people, not knowledge for knowlege's sake. $\endgroup$ – user3116 Nov 12 '13 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the definition of evolutionary psychology. It helps. However, your second comment creates a false dichotomy. I did not mean to suggest anti-social behaviour == creativity. I meant: sports and chit-chat on celebs... and no interest in anything else. Furthermore, my models of creativity are Alan Kay, Bret Victor, the Eames couple, etc... They are all very social people, but have interests beyond sports, chit-chat, etc. $\endgroup$ – dgo.a Nov 13 '13 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @what If you put your first comment as an answer, I am willing to accept it as the best answer. $\endgroup$ – dgo.a Nov 13 '13 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ @what I re-read what I wrote. It turns out the examples I gave were too extreme and gave the impression that I thought anti-social behaviour equated creativity. I apologize for my poor memory and writing. $\endgroup$ – dgo.a Nov 13 '13 at 21:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.